Journal of Social Philosophy 41 (2):185-193 (2010)

Sarah Roberts-Cady
Fort Lewis College
From the article's conclusion: "This article does not challenge the coherence of retributive theory nor does it challenge the consistency of a retributive theorist who supports the death penalty. I have only argued that one cannot justify the death penalty simply by establishing the claim that wrongdoers deserve punishment which fits the crime. Unless one is willing to condone all sorts of barbaric punishments, then one must appeal to additional ethical considerations to establish which equivalent (or roughly equivalent or proportional) punishments are morally acceptable."
Keywords capital punishment  retributivism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9833.2010.01486.x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,579
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Structure of Death Penalty Arguments.Matt Stichter - 2014 - Res Publica 20 (2):129-143.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
259 ( #38,904 of 2,461,991 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #47,681 of 2,461,991 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes